Data collected by cars and sold to third parties
457 points
• 1 day ago
• Article
Link
现代汽车越来越像复杂的数据采集终端，追踪车主的大量信息并将这些情报出售给第三方。司机往往不了解被监控的范围，也可能在签署复杂的服务协议时不知不觉同意了数据采集。很多人被动加入了监测驾驶习惯的项目，比如速度、制动方式和行驶时间等。
今年早些时候，Federal Trade Commission 对 General Motors 实施了史无前例的为期五年的禁令，禁止其向第三方数据经纪人和消费者报告机构出售客户数据，标志着这一领域的一个重要转折点。这一行动针对的是 GM 与 LexisNexis 、 Verisk 等公司共享敏感地理位置与驾驶行为数据的做法，后者利用这些信息为保险业生成风险画像。
后果很严重：一些车主反映，在车辆数据被转交给这些经纪商后，保险费出现了突增且无法解释。他们常常并不知道自己在注册 OnStar 等互联服务时激活了名为 Smart Driver 的功能，正将其行为数据传给第三方。注册过程被指设计得故意混淆，使许多用户无法就隐私做出知情选择。
在与 Federal Trade Commission 达成和解后，General Motors 被要求提高透明度，例如便于车主禁用位置追踪，并允许车主访问或删除被收集的数据。尽管这项和解是一次重要的监管干预，但问题并不局限于一家厂商。 General Motors 只是更大行业趋势的一个例子：汽车厂商正越来越依赖收集并变现现代互联车辆产生的大量数据作为商业模式。
The modern vehicle has increasingly become a sophisticated data collection device, tracking a vast amount of information about its owners and selling that intelligence to third parties. This practice often occurs without the driver fully understanding the extent of the surveillance or realizing that they have consented to such data harvesting through complex service agreements. Many drivers are unknowingly enrolled in programs that monitor their driving habits, such as speed, braking patterns, and the time of day they are on the road.
A major turning point in this landscape occurred earlier this year when the Federal Trade Commission imposed an unprecedented five-year ban on General Motors regarding the sale of customer data to third-party data brokers and consumer reporting agencies. The FTC's action was a response to GM's practice of sharing sensitive geolocation and driving behavior data with companies like LexisNexis and Verisk, which subsequently used this information to generate risk profiles for the insurance industry.
The consequences for consumers were significant, as some drivers reported sudden, unexplained increases in their insurance premiums after their vehicle data was funneled to these brokers. These individuals were often unaware that a feature titled Smart Driver, which they activated while signing up for connected services like OnStar, was actively feeding their behavioral data to third-party entities. The enrollment process was criticized for being intentionally confusing, which prevented many users from making informed decisions about their privacy.
Following the settlement with the FTC, General Motors is now required to improve transparency, specifically by making it easier for owners to disable location tracking and providing them with the ability to access or delete their collected data. While this settlement marks a major regulatory intervention, the problem extends far beyond a single manufacturer. General Motors is simply one example of a broader industry trend where automakers are increasingly shifting toward business models that rely on vacuuming up and monetizing the vast amounts of data generated by modern, connected vehicles.
236 comments • Comments Link
- 现代汽车经常将远程信息数据（telematics data）传送给第三方数据经纪商，使得 Carfax 等服务能够在车主不知情或未同意的情况下追踪里程和车辆使用情况。
- 要禁用车辆监控非常困难，软件开关通常不可靠，且硬件功能常与关键的信息娱乐或安全系统绑定，存在导致组件报废（bricked）的风险。
- 许多现代汽车已变成"带轮子的手机"，含有寿命有限的零部件；当这些部件与限制性的加密握手相结合时，长期拥有和维修变得愈发困难。
- 物理干预，例如拆掉天线或拔掉特定保险丝，通常比更改软件设置更有效，尽管这样可能会削弱 GPS 和远程空调控制等必要功能。
- 个人隐私与消费者便利之间的紧张关系反复出现；许多人（常因家庭需要）更看重联网功能带来的便利，而非数据安全。
- 汽车数据收集通常涉及两类截然不同的信息：一类是客观的车辆健康 / 状态（VIN 、里程、召回）；另一类是具有侵入性的驾驶者行为（位置、速度、驾驶习惯），后者需要更严格的监管和禁令。
- 虽有人主张通过"以消费选择表达意见"的方式应对，但也有人认为市场化方案正在失效，因为隐私只是小众关注点，且厂商经常通过远程更新覆盖用户设置。
- 维修权倡导者强调，受限的软件架构和专有数据锁定实际上把汽车拥有权变成昂贵的租赁，剥夺了用户修改或修理自有财产的能力。
- 使用 90 年代和 2000 年代初的旧车仍然是避免被监控最可靠的方法，尽管这一策略面临生锈、道路安全标准以及作为爱好所需的持续维护等挑战。
- 立法行动常被提出为遏制数据经纪的唯一长期解决方案，尽管怀疑者担心现有的隐私法案可能会为保护行业利益而被刻意削弱。
这场讨论反映了人们对汽车从机械工具转变为数据收集软件平台的日益不满。参与者对制造商关于隐私的承诺深表怀疑，指出即便声称已禁用遥测，车辆往往仍会通过专有连接"拨回家"。在对现代便利功能的渴望与维持对个人数据控制的必要性之间存在明显紧张，导致许多人诉诸硬件层面的改装或保留较旧的非联网车辆。讨论最终达成的广泛共识是：当前的市场趋势将制造商利润和数据提取置于用户自主之上，人们几乎不相信仅凭消费者选择就能扭转车辆隐私的衰退。 • Modern vehicles frequently transmit telematics data to third-party brokers, enabling services like Carfax to track mileage and activity without owner knowledge or consent.
• Disabling vehicle surveillance is difficult, as software switches are often unreliable, and hardware features are frequently tied to critical infotainment or safety systems, risking "bricked" components.
• Many modern vehicles have become "cell phones on wheels," featuring limited-lifespan components that, when combined with restrictive cryptographic handshakes, make long-term ownership and repair increasingly difficult.
• Physical intervention, such as unplugging antennas or pulling specific fuses, is often more effective than software settings, though such modifications may degrade desired features like GPS and remote climate control.
• The tension between personal privacy and consumer convenience is a recurring hurdle, as many individuals—often pressured by household needs—prioritize the ease of modern, connected features over data security.
• Data collection in cars generally involves two distinct categories: objective vehicle health/status (VIN, mileage, recalls) and invasive driver behavior (location, speed, habits), with the latter requiring significantly stricter regulation and bans.
• While some argue for voting with one's wallet, others contend that market-based solutions are failing because privacy is a niche concern, and companies frequently override user settings via remote updates.
• Right-to-repair advocates emphasize that restrictive software architectures and proprietary data lock-ins effectively turn car ownership into an expensive lease, depriving users of the ability to modify or repair their own property.
• Using older vehicles from the 1990s and early 2000s remains the most reliable way to avoid surveillance, though this strategy is challenged by rust, road safety standards, and the requirement for consistent maintenance as a hobby.
• Legislative action is frequently proposed as the only long-term solution to curb data brokerage, though skeptics worry that existing privacy bills are intentionally weakened to protect industry interests.
The conversation reflects a growing frustration with the transformation of cars from mechanical tools into data-harvesting software platforms. Participants are deeply skeptical of manufacturer promises regarding privacy, noting that even when telemetry is purportedly disabled, vehicles often continue to "dial home" via proprietary connections. There is a palpable tension between the desire for modern convenience features and the necessity of maintaining control over one's own data, leading many to resort to hardware-level modifications or the preservation of older, non-connected vehicles. Ultimately, the discussion highlights a broad consensus that current market trends prioritize manufacturer profit and data extraction over user autonomy, with little confidence that consumer choice alone will reverse the decline in vehicle privacy.